The Democratic Debate Schedule Is A Mess. Here’s How To Fix It. - MSNBC

[WillyT]

The Democratic debate schedule is a mess. Here’s how to fix it.
By Simon Rosenberg - MSNBC
9/9/15

<snip>

The critics are right: If the point of presidential primary debates is to give candidates a forum to make their case to the tens of millions of people who will pick their party’s nominee, the current Democratic debate calendar is wholly insufficient to the task at hand. There are too few debates, too many are on weekends or holidays when viewership is much lower, and there aren’t enough close to when the most consequential voting will take place.

Before we get into the devilish details, it’s important to look at next’s year’s very front-loaded Democratic primary calendar: The four early states – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina – vote in February, followed by 21 more states between March 1 and March 15. The result is that the Democratic nominee will be effectively locked in by mid-March, only six weeks after primary voting begins. It is potentially a very compressed calendar.

As of today, the Republicans have ten debates scheduled before mid-March, while the Democrats have four. Of those debates, the GOP has six debates scheduled in the ten weeks closest to the actual voting, while the Democrats have just one.

In 2016, the GOP will have debates in Iowa, New Hampshire, Texas, Florida, and twice in South Carolina – all consequential states. The only debate the Democrats have scheduled currently in 2016 is on the Sunday night of the Martin Luther King Day weekend in South Carolina.

Rather than being close to the voting – when people are paying attention – the only Democratic debate scheduled for Iowa is taking place 10 weeks before the caucuses, on a Saturday night, and the only New Hampshire debate is happening on Dec. 19, the last Saturday before Christmas, when the last thing on anyone’s mind will be politics.

Of the eight debates the GOP has scheduled with actual firm dates, six are during the week when viewership is higher. Of the four Democratic debates with firm dates, only one is during the week. The rest are on the weekend, and two – the Iowa and South Carolina debates – are also during holiday weekends.

There are three ways the Democratic National Committee can improve the schedule:

1. Move more of the existing debates to weeknights

2. Add more debates in the key states prior to March 15

3, Remove the limit on debates in case the nominating process goes beyond March 15.

The DNC should also try to get the 2015 debates in Iowa and New Hampshire moved to better days during the week, add Iowa, New Hampshire and one other debate to the early 2016 window, and lock in the proposed Florida and Wisconsin debates before March 15. If in February the election looks like it is going to go to late spring, more debates can be added. There’s no reason to have a cap, or to force candidates to agree to one.

In the digital age...

<snip>

More: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-democratic-debate-schedule-mess-heres-how-fix-it

[KoKo]

1. Recommend!

[WillyT]

9. Thanks !!!

[tularetom]

2. Assuming that anybody in the party "leadership" wants to fix it

The whole schedule is set up to ensure Hillary (Bomb Iran) Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

[global1]

6. I Guess That's What Is Meant By 'Presumptive Nominee' .....nt

[jwirr]

3. Well said. But it looks like we cannot fix it. Only the

DNC can. The question is will they?

[WillyT]

10. Therefore... By Definition... The Fix Is In...

Just sayin...

[jwirr]

20. More or less what I was saying. One thing for sure if

Hillary becomes President and appoints DWS to some job we will know for sure.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Corporate media and failing political parties want mudslinging sideshows, real political parties want issue debates.

[WillyT]

11. Did You Catch This ???

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251568565

[Fred Sanders]

13. Catch what, all I see is an unattributed link....no, thanks!?

But did you see the comment right below mine? Is that the sentiment?

[WillyT]

15. The Link Is Attributed To DU... That's Why It Says... DULink...

[GoneFishin]

5. All the more reason to kick the fucking right wingers out of the party. Enough is enough.

This may be the last chance to do it before they lock down every possible avenue for meaningful change.

[global1]

7. Way To Go Dems - Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory.....nt

[WillyT]

8. They All Seem To Work For The Status Quo... Sigh...

Keep that gravy-train a runnin.

[jwirr]

21. And why not? They are not the ones hurting. We are.

[WillyT]

22. Exactly...

[Fred Sanders]

14. Since "the jaws" are still half an ocean in the future....no...no jaws...

[jfern]

12. They did this on purpose

To make them as irrelevant as possible because they know that they need little scrutiny as possible for their 3rd way hawk to get the nomination.

[bigdarryl]

16. Yeah Rachel is always railing about the republican debates she should start on the dems every night

Because they need them

[jwirr]

23. I am actually surprise that the MSM did not join in on

this argument as there is money to be made in debates. Even if it is the DNC that is the host they would have to be on some media source when they aired.

[kenfrequed]

17. Simpler solution

Remove the language that punishes candidates from participating in non-sanctioned debates.

[WillyT]

18. Agreed...

[Babel_17]

19. The schedule was designed so as to not inconvenience the front runner

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

People noticing, and taking exception to, its blatant favoritism is now inconvenient. Oh, the irony. With all the money at their disposal, and connections, the Clinton campaign could be having debates and using their advantages to spin the results. Instead, the campaign is now taking a hit for ally DWS having pushed them so far back, and limiting their number.

It makes people prone to seeing weakness, and bullying, and a corrupt system at work. Secretary Clinton has signaled she's open to there being more debates, that needs to be built on.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government;

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson

[Uncle Joe]

25. That's precisely what Schultz and her ilk are afraid of, an informed electorate.

[WillyT]

26. Evening Kick !!!